Revision to Agenda Item #1
• Revising Draft Resolution No. 25-015
(Attachment B), correcting an inadvertent
error in the total approved building size
approved by the Planning Commission to
match what was originally assessed in the
project's California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review of no more
than 392,857 square feet in size. This
adjustment is authorized pursuant to
Section 16-2.02.090 of the Victorville
Municipal Code, which states that the
City Council may affirm, reverse, or
modify the decision of the Planning
Commission.
• Revising subsection (3) of the
Recommendation to read as follows:
•Adopt Resolution No. 25-015 -
Affirming and Modifying the decision
of the Planning Commission, as
conditioned, including a modified
Condition of Approval #1, and finding
that the project environmental
analysis was appropriately assessed
via a Mitigated Negative Declaration
that includes mitigation measures to
ensure the impacts on the environment
and community are less than
significant.
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT B
Revised Resolution No. 25-015
RESOLUTION NO. 25-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE AFFIRMING
AND MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN23-00003; A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 400,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION BUILDING ON TWO VACANT M-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONED PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 18
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOGICAL EXTENSIONS
OF CACTUS ROAD AND MESA LINDA AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was received from Steeno Design Studio, Inc. regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:
PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14027, IN THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 196, PAGES 85, 86 AND 87, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the 8th day of January 2025, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Victorville Planning Department undertook and completed an Initial Study for the project, the result of which was the preparation and circulation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the Planning
Resolution No. 25-015 February 18, 2025
Commission, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the Planning Commission found that with the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the project, including all supporting evidence and comments received, all of which documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed use along with adequate development standards to ensure land use compatibility due to the sites location within a heavy industrial zone, the projects conformance with applicable standards of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code including building size and placement, sufficient access and off-site connections, and the sites location along three Collector Roadways (Cactus Road, Cantina Drive and Mesa Linda Avenue) with direct access to Highway 395; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the suspension allowances provided by Planning Commission Policy PCP-09- 001 or Section 16-5.12.190 of the Victorville Municipal Code for any unfinished right-of- way improvements and that the suspension of any unfinished improvements may adversely affect the public's health, safety and welfare; and therefore required the construction of any unfinished right-of-way improvements as required by the Victorville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(a) of the Victorville
Resolution No. 25-015 February 18, 2025
Municipal Code because the project follows the existing contours of the site and does not create significant artificial slopes or introduce buildings with views that would impact or reduce the privacy of neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code because the project will include a design theme that coordinates with recently approved industrial developments in the area with screened loading areas, enhanced walls and wrought iron fencing along the site's frontage, as well as complete roadway improvements along the sites frontage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(c) of the Victorville Municipal Code because the proposal will ensure minimal disruption to surrounding uses since the project site is bound on the north, east and west by proposed public rights-of-way, and adjacent to undeveloped property expected to be developed with similar uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(d) & (e) of the Victorville Municipal Code because the development is in general compliance with the applicable development standards, regulations and requirements of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code the applicable standards of the Industrial Design Guidelines including setbacks, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, site design, building design and site access; and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after hearing all arguments for and against the proposal, and after hearing all testimony offered on the 8th day of January,
Resolution No. 25-015 February 18, 2025
2025, adopted Resolution No. P-24-055 in accordance with Section 16-3.01.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code, which granted Site Plan Case No. PLAN23-00003 to allow for the development of an approximately 400,000 square foot warehouse distribution building on two vacant M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoned parcels totaling approximately 18 acres on the hereinabove described property; and
WHEREAS, an appeal application was received on the 15th day of January 2025 from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance regarding the Planning Commission approval of Planning Case No. PLAN23-00003; and
WHEREAS, the appellant has challenged the entire decision of the Planning Commission, asserting the Commission did not adequately investigate nor mitigate the project and are of the belief the Planning Commission did not fulfill their duty to address the environmental, social, and economic burdens the project imposes on Victorville residents; and
WHEREAS, an appeal hearing was held before the City Council on the 18th day of February 2025, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, and Section 16-2.02.090 of the Victorville Municipal Code to hear arguments for and against the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all documents constituting the record upon which the Planning Commission's decision was made, assessed the appellants statements on why they believe an error was made in the Planning Commission's decision, and heard all public testimony provided during the public hearing; and
Resolution No. 25-015 February 18, 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission inadvertently approved a Condition of Approval that did not match the project building size assessed in the environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based, shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that the appellants position that an error was made in the Planning Commission's evaluation of the project, the project impacts and the completeness of the environmental review is not supported by evidence sufficient to overturn or modify the Planning Commission's decision based upon: a determination the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately address the projects environmental concerns and those impacts that exist have been sufficiently mitigated; compliance with the City's General Plan and the project not impeding the implementation of the objectives and policies of the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan by complying with local air quality management district thresholds thereby not adversely impacting the air quality for a disadvantaged community, furthering community access to bike lanes and future transit corridors by building roadways, installing more than one- hundred trees throughout the project improving the tree canopy in the area, and not impeding the future development of healthy food options in the area given the project development conforms with the underlying zoning designation and General Plan; and the project's anticipated creation of nearly 300 temporary jobs for local skilled workers during construction and in excess of 300 permanent warehouse jobs following completion of the project, aiding in reducing the high unemployment rate of a disadvantaged community.
Resolution No. 25-015 February 18, 2025
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission inadvertently approved a building size inconsistent with the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that Condition of Approval # 1 of the Planning Commission approval should be revised as follows:
The site plan approval allows for the development of an approximately 377,924 sq. ft. warehouse and distribution facility that includes 14,933 sq. ft. of ancillary office space, 72 loading docks, 2 grade doors, 92 truck trailer parking spaces, as well as 178 passenger vehicle parking spaces. Associated site improvements such as paving, landscaping, walls, fencing, etc. are also included in the approval as depicted in the approved Site Plan and by Conditions of Approval; and
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission approved the subject Site Plan in accordance with all applicable Municipal Code provisions and Planning Commission Policies, and that the determination to approve the project was based upon findings that the City Council does not believe were made in error nor does the City Council, after a review of the entire record, disagree with the action taken by the Planning Commission; and
SECTION 3. That the appellant's request to modify the decision of the Planning Commission to grant Site Plan Case No. PLAN23-00003, that included Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures to ensure the impacts on the environment and community are less than significant on the above-described property is denied.